I'll echo Martin123's observations. Putting more questions in the CQB would have been a great idea if (a) the syllabus was properly written (b) the questions followed the syllabus (c) they were produced to a high standard and (d) they were properly validated. Sometimes a good question writer can compensate for a poor syllabus and unreliable validation; unfortunately if the person writing the question is not as good as he/she might be then we are leaning on an already rickety quality control process and failures slip through. English language validation in some subjects is definitely a problem.
In many cases the new questions are fine. In some subjects (I am told particularly in helicopter subjects) my instructors are actually decidedly impressed by the new output. However, in many other subjects some of the questions - not all - are a long way off 'fine'. The paradox is that unsatisfactory new questions drive candidates to use question banks even more as they struggle to find answers to questions they find otherwise unanswerable. That's an own goal, EASA. The NPA 29 syllabus they are now working to was once part of a comment and response process. The UK CAA told us 'You've been complaining about the syllabus for years - now is the chance for you to comment'. EASA decided to introduce it without taking account of any of the many comments, they have just passed them on to the next working group.
It may be that new questions have yet to filter in to exams in other EASA states. The UK CAA tend to be the most proactive national authority, and I have to say generally well intentioned but that is little comfort to the affected candidates.
Last edited by Alex Whittingham; 11th Aug 2016 at 12:48.